Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Rudhesinh (Rudesinh) Amarsinh ... on 26 October, 2021
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/FA/1919/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1919 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1919 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
RUDHESINH (RUDESINH) AMARSINH BARIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4
YAGNESHKUMAR S JOSHI(8074) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 26/10/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the
present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 for assailing the judgment and award dated
18.4.2019 passed by MACT (Aux.), Panchmahals at
Godhara, in MACP No.1297 of 2008.
C/FA/1919/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2021
2. Considering the narrow compass of the issue
involved in the appeal, by order dated 3.8.2021, Notice for
final disposal was issued. I have heard Mr.R.P. Raval,
learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Yagneshkumar
S. Joshi, learned advocate for respondent-claimant.
3. Mr.Raval, learned advocate vehemently submits that
the appellant had examined its officer Mr.Manishbhai
Badriprasad Namdar vide Exhibit 36, who had in clear
term, deposed that no insurance policy for the offending
vehicle Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-17-U-5924
were ever issued by the appellant-Insurance Company. He
submits that the driver has not at all considered the
evidence of this witness by fastening the liability of
payment of compensation on the appellant-Insurance
Company. Accordingly to his submission, the Tribunal
ought to have exonerated the appellant-Insurance
Company in view of the evidence of witness of the
appellant-Insurance Company. He, therefore, urges that
the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal in limited
purpose of deciding the issue of liability in view of the
evidence of Officer of the appellant-Insurance Company.
4. Learned advocate for the claimants submits that he
has no objection if the matter is remanded for the limited
purpose for deciding the liability of the Insurance
Company. However, he urges that the accident is of the
year 2007. Hence, the Tribunal upon remand may be
C/FA/1919/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2021
directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant had examined
its officer Mr.Manishbhai Badriprasad Namdar vide Exhibit
36. Upon verification of record, it was found that no
insurance policy was issued by the appellant-Insurance
Company for the offending vehicle, which was alleged to
have been insured by the appellant-Insurance Company.
He has also produced Exhibit 36 certificate certifying that
no insurance policy was issued in respect of the offending
vehicle.
6. As the Insurance Company had examined witness to
demonstrate that it has not issued any insurance policy in
respect of the offending vehicle, it was obligatory on the
part of the Tribunal to have discussed the evidence of the
witness to decide the issue of liability of the appellant-
Insurance company to pay the compensation.
7. The perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that
there is no discussion whatsoever about the evidence of
the officer of the appellant-Insurance Company and
straightway the liability is fastened on the appellant-
Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of the
accident, the offending vehicle i.e. Auto-rickshaw bearing
registration No.GJ-17-U-5924 was insured with the
appellant, and therefore, which is liable to pay the
C/FA/1919/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2021
compensation.
8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion, that the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal suffers
from non-application of mind and non-consideration of
evidence of the witness of the appellant-Insurance
Company on the issue of the liability of appellant-
Insurance Company to pay the compensation. In view
thereof, the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration so far as the issue of liability of
Insurance Company is concerned in light of the evidence
of Exhibit 36- Mr.Manishbhai Badriprasad Namdar.
9. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal succeeds in part
and the impugned judgment and award is hereby quashed
and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for
limited purpose of deciding the issue of liability of the
appellant-Insurance Company in light of the evidence of
Mr.Manishbhai Badriprasad Namdar-Exhibit 36, after
affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The
Tribunal is directed to finally decide the claim petition on
or before 31st December, 2021, as the claim petition in
respect of the accident, which has occurred in the year
2007.
10. Since main matter is disposed of, Civil Application
does not survive. Hence, same is disposed of.
Sd/-
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
ALI
